If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Paul explains himself in 1 Timothy 2, Eve was deceived by Satan into eating the fruit, Adam was not. Women and men enjoy different spiritual gifts, one of man’s spiritual gifts is authority and proper instruction in the church, women serve different but no less important roles in the church. As for “good reasons”, I can think of several, first of all if someone is more likely to be deceived spiritually then that is not the person you want instructing everyone else on spiritual matters, secondly and most importantly God clearly says through His revealed word they are not to instruct with authority within the church, that’s as good of a reason as you can get right there. Surely you’re not going to commit the unisex fallacy and try to tell me that men and women are identical are you?

God told Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit, so both were aware of the order. Eve may have been directly tricked by Satan, but Adam also ate the fruit, and he knew the rules of the garden, so I would say he was tricked by Satan as well. If you're going to take this story and apply the principles to the present day, wasn't Adam (man) a follower? Eve was at least tricked by a higher power, whereas Adam knowingly disobeyed God due to peer pressure. That doesn't sound like the kind of guy I want in an authoritative position. Also, was Adam ever directly tempted by Satan? How are we to know that Adam wouldn't have done the same thing? I just don't get how being deceived means you can't be in an authoritative position, but being a follower does mean you get to have authority.

No one would argue that men and women are identical, but I have strong opposition to how you differentiate them.

God told Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit, so both were aware of the order. Eve may have been directly tricked by Satan, but Adam also ate the fruit, and he knew the rules of the garden, so I would say he was tricked by Satan as well. If you're going to take this story and apply the principles to the present day, wasn't Adam (man) a follower? Eve was at least tricked by a higher power, whereas Adam knowingly disobeyed God due to peer pressure. That doesn't sound like the kind of guy I want in an authoritative position. Also, was Adam ever directly tempted by Satan? How are we to know that Adam wouldn't have done the same thing? I just don't get how being deceived means you can't be in an authoritative position, but being a follower does mean you get to have authority.

No one would argue that men and women are identical, but I have strong opposition to how you differentiate them.

If anything, one could argue that Eve was a leader and Adam a follower.

"I didn't feel like we had to score," Tannehill said. "I had the mindset we were going to score."

I found this article interesting, although I found the most interesting part to be where an anonymous commenter refutes the entire article and points out that Mr. Reeves misrepresents Jian Qi Shen’s position and then uses that misrepresentation to falsely argue against Dr. Lisle’s convention (the notion of arguing against a convention is rather useless to begin with since conventions are stipulated and not proven). Judging by how frustrated and downright childish Reeves gets in the comments I think the commenter was definitely on to something. Either way, Lisle has stated that the objections found in this argument are easily refuted and he will do so in due time. If scripture uses an an-isotropic synchrony convention in its detailed account of the creation week then the distant starlight problem is not a problem for creationists at all.

If you read the comments you’d already know the author refuted said poster.

Well, Mr. Anonymous why not go to the man himself (i.e. Jason Lisle) and ask him his opinion on whether or not arbitrarily shaped and angled “light cones” introduces a gravitational field in the general case?

2. Yes the Edwards space time is flat because the metrical tensor is not a function of position; therefore a simple conventional rescaling of the coordinates reestablishes the flat metrical tensor we are used to in ordinary special relativity. In this scenario ASC works.

3. But ASC fails to work with the asymmetric light cones that Jason is trying to introduce and whose skew varies from place to place: That is, Jason is telling us that the light cones in one direction are skewed toward us and in another completely different direction they are also skewed toward us – ergo, the skew changes from place to place; enter gravity.

4. Unfortunately Jian’s paper is only worked out for 2 dimensions; one spatial and one time. We find that the cat is really let out of the bag as soon as we move into 3 or 4 dimensions – it is then that your procedure of replacing r with x manifestly fails.

5. To simplify the problem you can forget all about moving observers; the gravitational fields become apparent between any two observers stationary with respect to one another but where one observer uses Jason’s skewed light cones and the other observer uses the standard vertical cones.

So you still haven't refuted his original research I posted, & if you want to wait for Lisle to respond, that's your call.

God told Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit, so both were aware of the order. Eve may have been directly tricked by Satan, but Adam also ate the fruit, and he knew the rules of the garden, so I would say he was tricked by Satan as well. If you're going to take this story and apply the principles to the present day, wasn't Adam (man) a follower? Eve was at least tricked by a higher power, whereas Adam knowingly disobeyed God due to peer pressure. That doesn't sound like the kind of guy I want in an authoritative position. Also, was Adam ever directly tempted by Satan? How are we to know that Adam wouldn't have done the same thing? I just don't get how being deceived means you can't be in an authoritative position, but being a follower does mean you get to have authority.

I never said that men were infallible, but Paul’s point is that Christian men are not as easily deceived spiritually as Christian women are. The teaching point he chooses to use is the Garden where Eve was spiritually deceived by Satan and Adam was not. He also uses the point that Men should have more authority in the Church because of the created order where men were created first and women second. Men having authority over women in no way means women are somehow inferior to men, God the Father has authority over Christ but this in no way means Christ was any less perfect.

No one would argue that men and women are identical, but I have strong opposition to how you differentiate them.

Why? Do you also have a problem if someone believes men are generally physically faster and stronger than women are?

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

Yup, that was exactly my point. Adam followed Eve, so God awards him with authority. Just doesn't add up.

Of course it adds up, let’s say I am on a trip with a friend, and he is the official map reader/navigator for the trip. However, he keeps having trouble reading the map, and getting us lost; because of this I think it makes good sense if I take the map from him and no longer let him be the map reader/navigator. Eve was spiritually deceived by Satan and therefore “got them lost”, so she lost the ability to be the navigator within the Church, it makes sense to me.

If you read the comments you’d already know the author refuted said poster.

No, I read that part and I don’t think he refuted the poster at all, he merely re-asserted his original position which is hardly a refutation. Given that and how childish he was acting I think the poster was really onto something, the guy misrepresented the other astro-physicists position, that part is obvious and I am glad the poster called him on it.

So you still haven't refuted his original research I posted, & if you want to wait for Lisle to respond, that's your call.

Original research? How is some dude’s blog considered “original research”?

Actually it looks like Lisle has already refuted your “original research”, he points out on his blog that ASC is merely a coordinate transformation of the Einstein Coordinate System, and coordinate transformations by definition cannot introduce any “real forces”, so all the writer of your “original research” did was refute a point that had nothing to do with Lisle’s model. I have no idea why you are wasting your time trying to refute a convention, it's not even possible to do so because conventions are stipulated and not proven.

1- That anonymous poster wrongly accused him of misrepresenting Shen's position, the author explain why that isn't the case. To which said anonymous poster basically just replied, "fine, just don't be insulting".

2- That isn't what he's doing at all

There is nothing to stop one choosing a synchrony convention which assigns events a time coordinate defined by the arrival of their signal at the Earth’s surface. But to define an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention is one thing; to then imply that anisotropy in the one way speed of light is also a matter of convention is entirely another thing. Let me explain.

1- That anonymous poster wrongly accused him of misrepresenting Shen's position, the author explain why that isn't the case. To which said anonymous poster basically just replied, "fine, just don't be insulting".

No, the blogger pretty much said, “oh you caught me distorting the facts, but here are some new facts to look at!” While all the time being incredibly immature and childish. Simply because somebody posts something on a blog and it’s not refuted doesn’t mean much, there are thousands of bloggers who criticize points Dawkins has made in his books and articles and he has yet to address their points, so what?

2- That isn't what he's doing at all

That isn’t what who is doing? Yes, Lisle Is merely using a convention that transforms the Einstein convention we use today, and yes your blogger is completely misunderstanding that to mean that it changes the way light in fact behaves rather than the manner in which we synchronize our clocks, it's silly, it'd be like saying that time zones actually make planes move faster going one direction and slower moving the other. The blogger doesn't get it at all.

That isn’t what who is doing? Yes, Lisle Is merely using a convention that transforms the Einstein convention we use today, and yes your blogger is completely misunderstanding that to mean that it changes the way light in fact behaves rather than the manner in which we synchronize our clocks, it's silly, it'd be like saying that time zones actually make planes move faster going one direction and slower moving the other. The blogger doesn't get it at all. [/COLOR]

You are the one who's not getting it.

In other words there is no gravitational field in the Edwards space time because the anisotropy in the speed of light is constant; in the Edwards space-time the anisotropy in the speed of light does not change its direction as one moves from place to place. Under these circumstance one can by convention choose the one way speed of light without having any observable effect on special relativity and other physical circumstances. But - and here is the big "but" – one cannot choose a one way speed of light that varies its direction from place to place without introducing a space curvature; that is, without introducing a gravitational field. And it is precisely an anisotropy in the speed of light that varies its direction from place to place that Lisle thinks he can achieve merely by definition:

The act of choosing a synchrony convention is synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light.

Given that Lisle requires the speed of light in the direction of Earth to be all but infinity, then this means the anisotropy in the speed of light is radially directed toward the Earth, thus implying that the anisotropy changes its direction from place to place. Therefore Lisle’s “convention” is not a mere coordinate system redefinition because he cannot take this step without his model being physically different, a difference that entails a gravitational field. In my last blog on this subject I assumed that Lisle would spot this and that he would be forced to postulate some kind of geocentric gravitational field. But it seems that neither Lisle nor his AiG reviewers have spotted it. For Lisle’s YEC cosmos to work it must be pervaded by some kind of geocentric gravitational field. But since he does not see that a gravitational field is required to give him a light speed anisotropy that changes direction he therefore sees no reason to postulate a source of this field. We cannot detect an anisotropy in the speed of light if its direction and magnitude is constant, but as soon as we try to “define” an anisotropy that is spatially variable we find we cannot do so without introducing a gravitational field. Therefore the act of choosing a synchrony convention is not synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light. In short Lisle’s paper is fundamentally flawed. ​